Proteasome inhibitors sensitize glioma cells and glioma stem cells to TRAIL-induced apoptosis by PKCε-dependent downregulation of AKT and XIAP expressions.

In this study we examined the effects of proteasome inhibitors on cell apoptosis in TRAIL-resistant glioma cells and glioma stem cells (GSCs). Treatment with proteasome inhibitors and TRAIL induced apoptosis in all the resistant glioma cells and GSCs, but not in astrocytes and neural progenitor cells. Since PKCε has been implicated in the resistance of glioma cells to TRAIL, we examined its role in TRAIL and proteasome inhibitor-induced apoptosis. We found that TRAIL did not induce significant changes in the expression of PKCε, whereas a partial decrease in PKCε expression was obtained by proteasome inhibitors. A combined treatment of TRAIL and proteasome inhibitors induced accumulation of the catalytic fragment of PKCε and significantly and selectively decreased its protein and mRNA levels in the cancer but not in normal cells. Overexpression of PKCε partially inhibited the apoptotic effect of the proteasome inhibitors and TRAIL, and the caspase-resistant PKCεD383A mutant exerted a stronger inhibitory effect. Silencing of PKCε induced cell apoptosis in both glioma cells and GSCs, further supporting its role in cell survival. TRAIL and the proteasome inhibitors decreased the expression of AKT and XIAP in a PKCε-dependent manner and overexpression of these proteins abolished the apoptotic effect of this treatment. Moreover, silencing of XIAP sensitized glioma cells to TRAIL. Our results indicate that proteasome inhibitors sensitize glioma cells and GSCs to TRAIL by decreasing the expression of PKCε, AKT and XIAP. Combining proteasome inhibitors with TRAIL may be useful therapeutically in the treatment of gliomas and the eradication of GSCs.

Cellular transcription factor Sp1 recruits simian virus 40 capsid proteins to the viral packaging signal, ses.

Simian virus 40 (SV40) capsid assembly occurs in the nucleus. All three capsid proteins bind DNA nonspecifically, raising the dilemma of how they attain specificity to the SV40 minichromosome in the presence of a large excess of genomic DNA. The SV40 packaging signal, ses, which is required for assembly, is composed of multiple DNA elements that bind transcription factor Sp1. Our previous studies showed that Sp1 participates in SV40 assembly and that it cooperates in DNA binding with VP2/3. We hypothesized that Sp1 recruits the capsid proteins to the viral minichromosome, conferring upon them specific DNA recognition. Here, we have tested the hypothesis. Computer analysis showed that the combination of six tandem GC boxes at ses is not found at cellular promoters and therefore is unique to SV40. Cooperativity in DNA binding between Sp1 and VP2/3 was not abolished at even a 1,000-fold excess of cellular DNA, providing strong support for the recruitment hypothesis. Sp1 also binds VP1 and cooperates with VP1 in DNA binding. VP1 pentamers (VP1(5)) avidly interact with VP2/3, utilizing the same VP2/3 domain as described for polyomavirus. We conclude that VP1(5)-VP2/3 building blocks are recruited by Sp1 to ses, where they form the nucleation center for capsid assembly. By this mechanism the virus ensures that capsid formation is initiated at a single site around its minichromosome. Sp1 enhances the formation of SV40 pseudovirions in vitro, providing additional support for the model. Analyses of Sp1 and VP3 deletion mutants showed that Sp1 and VP2/3 bind one another and cooperate in DNA binding through their DNA-binding domains, with additional contacts outside these domains. VP1 contacts Sp1 at residues outside the Sp1 DNA-binding domain. These and additional data allowed us to propose a molecular model for the VP1(5)-VP2/3-DNA-Sp1 complex.